Nuclear Engergy Dangerous?

[Drachma]

What I understand happened in Chernobyl (I actually did quite a bit of research on this) was not caused by the reactor itself. The whole thing happened during a shut-down drill. The computer safety systems where not working properly because of lack of worker monitoring. Some nuclear particles spread far across Europe because of the weather conditions. Ukraine and Belarus where most affected. However, a kind of dome was built over the site which effectively contained it.

Please don't go on to say "those soviets should learn to monitor their security" because countless accidents like this have occurred here, in the US.

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by Drachma

countless accidents like this have occurred here, in the US.

Ye what Chuck?

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by Drachma

What I understand happened in Chernobyl (I actually did quite a bit of research on this) was not caused by the reactor itself. The whole thing happened during a shut-down drill. The computer safety systems where not working properly because of lack of worker monitoring....

Please don't go on to say "those soviets should learn to monitor their security" because countless accidents like this have occurred here, in the US.

The only US incident I know of on anything comparable to Chernobyl was the Three Mile Accident. Unlike Chernobyl, there were no immediate fatalities or injuries.

There are no doubt reports of other incidents in nuclear power stations and the media tends to jump on these regardless of the nature of the incident. Here's an example of what I mean:
BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Blaze hits German nuclear plant
"Blaze hits German nuclear plant" is the headline. Including the word "nuclear" is headline grabbing. The fire was in a power transformer cooling system. All major power stations have transformers to step up generated voltage to grid voltage. Regardless of primary power source. The failure was not nuclear related.

There have been scare stories too about cracked boiler tubes:
"UK nuclear generator British Energy has revealed that boiler tube cracking at its Hunterston B and Hinkley Point B power stations is such that additional inspections are required at other reactors."
This was put around as a media story relating to nuclear power stations but boiler tube cracking is a problem for any steam generating plant. There is one coal-fired power station I know of that was permanently taken out of service because of exactly that problem.

In short, I think nuclear power sometimes gets a bad rap in the media. Even when it clearly isn't deserved.

[OH-IO1981]

Nuclear energy and its bi product are the anithesis to life on earth.

1 Even if the odds of a plant blowing up, spewing radiation over the are making it unhabitable for decades even centuries, are remote, there is still a chance.

2a "Not in my backyard" Who wants a nuclear plant near there home?
2b Who wants the nucler wast being moved by train or truck past your house.

3 So what if we are buliding a repository in wyoming that gaurantees the safe storage of this waste for 5-10,000 some years. What about in 11,000 years. Hello mr radiation, meet mr water table.

The point is there is too many negatives that FAR outweight the positives.

Lets stop making things that trash the planet.

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by OH-IO1981

The point is there is too many negatives that FAR outweight the positives.

Oh God,another August,and do bone up on the facts then detail the negatives for us.I think we had someone selling anti-radiation tin hats here a while back.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by OH-IO1981

Nuclear energy and its bi product are the anithesis to life on earth.

1 Even if the odds of a plant blowing up, spewing radiation over the are making it unhabitable for decades even centuries, are remote, there is still a chance.

2a "Not in my backyard" Who wants a nuclear plant near there home?
2b Who wants the nucler wast being moved by train or truck past your house.

3 So what if we are buliding a repository in wyoming that gaurantees the safe storage of this waste for 5-10,000 some years. What about in 11,000 years. Hello mr radiation, meet mr water table.

The point is there is too many negatives that FAR outweight the positives.

Lets stop making things that trash the planet.

Not really thought it through have you.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by OH-IO1981

Nuclear energy and its bi product are the anithesis to life on earth.

1 Even if the odds of a plant blowing up, spewing radiation over the are making it unhabitable for decades even centuries, are remote, there is still a chance.

Few man-made endevours are without risk. Perhaps you remember Bhopal?
But just limiting this to power generation we have, for example:
Machhu II, India, hydro-electric dam failure, 2,500 fatalities
Hirakud, India, another dam, 1,000 fatalaties
Asha-ufa, Siberia, LPG fire, 600 fatalities.
To name but a few.
Proscribing nuclear would not avert risk.

Originally Posted by OH-IO1981

2a "Not in my backyard" Who wants a nuclear plant near there home?
2b Who wants the nucler wast being moved by train or truck past your house.

Given the stats for RTAs, I am more likely to be killed by a truck than its contents. Should we ban road transport?

Originally Posted by OH-IO1981

3 So what if we are buliding a repository in wyoming that gaurantees the safe storage of this waste for 5-10,000 some years. What about in 11,000 years. Hello mr radiation, meet mr water table.

Nobody can predict what will happen in the intervening 10,000 years. It isn't a very sound basis for rejecting nuclear power.

Originally Posted by OH-IO1981

The point is there is too many negatives that FAR outweight the positives.

What you have highlighted are potential negatives. Other power generation has actual negatives.

[forfismum]

The post by Wobs on asbestos has reminded me to come back to this thread.There has been much unfounded nonsense written about supposed risks from nuclear power but the radiation around power stations and places like Sellafield are below the background levels found around the world.Where I live people are dying from lung cancers caused by exposure to Radon gas which is quite natural,not that I wish to inhale it on a daily basis thank you very much.But I would be safer living near a nuclear power plant than in the beautiful South of Ireland

[Deathridesahorse]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

The only US incident I know of on anything comparable to Chernobyl was the Three Mile Accident. Unlike Chernobyl, there were no immediate fatalities or injuries.

There are no doubt reports of other incidents in nuclear power stations and the media tends to jump on these regardless of the nature of the incident. Here's an example of what I mean:
BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Blaze hits German nuclear plant
"Blaze hits German nuclear plant" is the headline. Including the word "nuclear" is headline grabbing. The fire was in a power transformer cooling system. All major power stations have transformers to step up generated voltage to grid voltage. Regardless of primary power source. The failure was not nuclear related.

There have been scare stories too about cracked boiler tubes:
"UK nuclear generator British Energy has revealed that boiler tube cracking at its Hunterston B and Hinkley Point B power stations is such that additional inspections are required at other reactors."
This was put around as a media story relating to nuclear power stations but boiler tube cracking is a problem for any steam generating plant. There is one coal-fired power station I know of that was permanently taken out of service because of exactly that problem.

In short, I think nuclear power sometimes gets a bad rap in the media. Even when it clearly isn't deserved.

But, were the stories particularly damning of Nuclear, or simply stories relating to Nuclear perseved as riduculous propaganda?!?

[Deathridesahorse]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Not really thought it through have you.

What do you (really) mean?